CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt }   Communicated on 16 May 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 64831/12 Irakli KHAREBAVA against Georgia lodged on 24 September 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Irakli Kharebava, is a Georgian national who was born in 1984 and is detained in Tbilisi. He is represented before the Court by Mr   M. Kiria and Mr J. Kobalia, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 19 February 2011 the applicant was identified by the victim of an armed robbery while the person was examining an album of photographs of previous suspects with an investigator. On 23 February 2011 the applicant was taken to a police station, questioned as a witness and later identified by the victim in an identity parade. The applicant asked for a lawyer several times during those investigative actions, but his request was denied. The applicant was arrested immediately after the identity parade for allegedly committing armed robbery in a group on 13 January 2011. On 11 November 2011 the applicant and his accomplice were found guilty of committing armed robbery in a group and the applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The results of the identification parade were confirmed by the trial court as the only direct piece of incriminating evidence against the applicant. On 1 February 2012 a court of appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance court judgement. On 29 March of 2012 the Supreme Court of Georgia disallowed a cassation appeal by the applicant as inadmissible. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that the national authorities did not provide him with legal assistance during the investigation . QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the initial stage of the criminal investigation, was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choice, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? Notably, did the failure to provide the applicant with access to a lawyer during the identification parade amount to a violation of his right under the above ‑ mentioned provision?